| This question <49|43> overall <40|42> Marcellus: <603|103>. |
| Question 73: Marx argues that commodities are exchangeable only because they contain some common substance. Bailey denies this. He compares the exchange-value of commodities with the distance between points, which is not based on a commonality between the two points but is purely relative: “As we cannot speak of the distance of any object without implying some other object between which and the former this relation exists, so we cannot speak of the value of a commodity but in reference to another commodity compared with it. A thing cannot be valuable in itself without reference to another thing any more than a thing can be distant in itself without reference to another thing.” . Comment. |
| [41] Marcellus: I think Bailey is wrong to assume that a commodity has to be compared to another in order to determine the former's exchange value. My reasoning behind this goes as follows. If I was the owner of a bamboo production facility and after a week's worth of operations I had a warehouse full of bamboo, I could put an exchange value on it of equal or greater value to the amount of money it cost me to manufacture it including the cost of the equipment, the utility bills, and the cost of labor. Although it may be useful to know how much exchange value the lumberyard down the street places on its timber, it is not necessary for me to put an exchange value on my bamboo. Therefore I agree with Marx and the “common substance” between commodities, this substance being the cost to produce the commodity. |
| Hans: Marx would of course agree with you that Bailey is wrong. But didn't Bailey make a good case for his conclusion? Where is the error in Bailey's argument? If you answer question 73, you are expected to address this. |
|
|
|||||